Comments on: USAF Report: “Most” Nuclear Weapon Sites In Europe Do Not Meet US Security Requirements http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php Comments and analyses of important national and international security issues Fri, 25 May 2012 17:31:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Roger http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-13232 Roger Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:16:33 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-13232 Belgian peace activists claim to have penetrated into active nuclear weapon storage facility. Is this claim accurate or had the weapons already been withdrawn? Their e-mail said: "after we noticed our January filmed visit of Kleine Brogel caused some interesting discussions, we have put some more effort in a more extensive investigation. To our surprise we even were able to make a picture inside an aircraft shelter with WS3-installation. You find a new movie <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1fnDhwWm-U" rel="nofollow">here</a> and a technical analysis <a target="_blank" href="http://www.vredesactie.be/article.php?id=676" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Please spread the word and use it to raise new attention to the NATO nukes. In a week NATO discusses a first time the new Strategic Concept, so public debate on NATO nukes is very useful. Best wishes, Hans Lammerant - Vredesactie" DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com Belgian peace activists claim to have penetrated into active nuclear weapon storage facility. Is this claim accurate or had the weapons already been withdrawn? Their e-mail said:

“after we noticed our January filmed visit of Kleine Brogel caused some interesting discussions, we have put some more effort in a more extensive investigation. To our surprise we even were able to make a picture inside an aircraft shelter with WS3-installation. You find a new movie here and a technical analysis here.

Please spread the word and use it to raise new attention to the NATO nukes. In a week NATO discusses a first time the new Strategic Concept, so public debate on NATO nukes is very useful.

Best wishes,
Hans Lammerant – Vredesactie”
DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

]]> By: Former Maintainer of Said Items http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-12032 Former Maintainer of Said Items Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:12:36 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-12032 About the "black dots", lets just say they are location identifiers, and let it go at that. Anything else would be revealing classified information. About the “black dots”, lets just say they are location identifiers, and let it go at that. Anything else would be revealing classified information.

]]> By: menezes http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-8378 menezes Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:46:26 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-8378 Arms in Europe for whom ? The danger is beyonde the old countrys and the 'traditional linkage's'. New Order, new institutions with a new aproach is the vision of the new Presidente of United States, but the new foreign policy of Washingthon and the new dialogo inside NATO, economic regulation market, problems with the Earth, has a new supporte and a better developement. Arms in Europe for whom ? The danger is beyonde the old countrys and the ‘traditional linkage’s’. New Order, new institutions with a new aproach is the vision of the new Presidente of United States, but the new foreign policy of Washingthon and the new dialogo inside NATO, economic regulation market, problems with the Earth, has a new supporte and a better developement.

]]> By: An Airman http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-8144 An Airman Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:53:20 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-8144 Does anyone know what the black dots are on the dummy weapon??? And table 1's numbers are not accurate. not at all. <b>Reply: </b>I don't know about the black dots, but if you know about the numbers let me know. HK Does anyone know what the black dots are on the dummy weapon???
And table 1′s numbers are not accurate. not at all.

Reply: I don’t know about the black dots, but if you know about the numbers let me know. HK

]]> By: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawn From the United Kingdom » FAS Strategic Security Blog http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3614 U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawn From the United Kingdom » FAS Strategic Security Blog Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:39:28 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3614 [...] week I reported that security deficiencies found by the U.S. Air Force Blue Ribbon Review at “most” sites were [...] [...] week I reported that security deficiencies found by the U.S. Air Force Blue Ribbon Review at “most” sites were [...]

]]> By: Hector http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3572 Hector Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:28:16 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3572 Hey Steve, I think when the article mentions conscripts it was speaking of certain host nations. You should also note that it's not the security practices of the American Airmen that is at question here but what each host nation provides of their own, considering none of these bases actually belong solely to America. -An American Airman Hey Steve, I think when the article mentions conscripts it was speaking of certain host nations. You should also note that it’s not the security practices of the American Airmen that is at question here but what each host nation provides of their own, considering none of these bases actually belong solely to America.
-An American Airman

]]> By: Steve White http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3270 Steve White Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:22:23 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3270 One major, major flaw in this article: the U.S. armed forces do not have 'conscripts', and haven't for the last 30+ years. Further, the coursework and training for a person who will be around nuclear weapons is substantially longer than nine months. The security and psychological vetting takes considerable time. Just these basic errors make me doubt the entire report. It is simply not likely at all that an 'internal U.S. Air Force investigation' would make such errors. <b>Reply: </b>The mentioning of "conscripts" is made by the Blue Ribbon Review report, not by me, and it concerns conscripts in the national armed forces of some of the countries where the weapons are stationed, not U.S. conscripts. HK One major, major flaw in this article: the U.S. armed forces do not have ‘conscripts’, and haven’t for the last 30+ years.

Further, the coursework and training for a person who will be around nuclear weapons is substantially longer than nine months. The security and psychological vetting takes considerable time.

Just these basic errors make me doubt the entire report. It is simply not likely at all that an ‘internal U.S. Air Force investigation’ would make such errors.

Reply: The mentioning of “conscripts” is made by the Blue Ribbon Review report, not by me, and it concerns conscripts in the national armed forces of some of the countries where the weapons are stationed, not U.S. conscripts. HK

]]> By: Michael Gerke http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3248 Michael Gerke Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:56:31 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3248 As I have already stated a decade ago: 1. Nukes on planes, no matter if tactical or strategic, do not have any military relevance in war scenarios which will last no longer than a few dozen minutes and whose results will be apocalyptical. 2. Using tactical nukes as a bargaining-chip in debates about strategic disarmament is all but a good advice. Their military value is doubtful: they either escalate a conflict automatically to an all-out nuclear war or cannot help fight combatants in an asymmetric war (How helpful are mini-nukes against the Taleban, Mr President?). Thus, let's get rid of them, especially in Europe! As I have already stated a decade ago:
1. Nukes on planes, no matter if tactical or strategic, do not have any military relevance in war scenarios which will last no longer than a few dozen minutes and whose results will be apocalyptical.
2. Using tactical nukes as a bargaining-chip in debates about strategic disarmament is all but a good advice. Their military value is doubtful: they either escalate a conflict automatically to an all-out nuclear war or cannot help fight combatants in an asymmetric war (How helpful are mini-nukes against the Taleban, Mr President?).
Thus, let’s get rid of them, especially in Europe!

]]> By: loadster http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3246 loadster Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:34:43 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3246 Good discussion, though somewhat Chicken Little. I agree resources are key, when an audit sees deficiencies. How appropriate that the first photo is from Holland where you can only keep a manageable number of thumbs in the dike leaks. It seems to me that nuclear strategic weapons should be a budget element that is non-negotiable and perpetually endowed. If we're robbing from nuclear deterrence to bolster fences and border patrol, we're only shifting risk. The greatest problem is that comptrollers at the Pentagon are clueless of issues in Holland or Italy and Lou Dobbs gets greater air time. Good discussion, though somewhat Chicken Little. I agree resources are key, when an audit sees deficiencies. How appropriate that the first photo is from Holland where you can only keep a manageable number of thumbs in the dike leaks. It seems to me that nuclear strategic weapons should be a budget element that is non-negotiable and perpetually endowed. If we’re robbing from nuclear deterrence to bolster fences and border patrol, we’re only shifting risk. The greatest problem is that comptrollers at the Pentagon are clueless of issues in Holland or Italy and Lou Dobbs gets greater air time.

]]> By: Michael Arnold http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/usaf-report-%e2%80%9cmost%e2%80%9d-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-do-not-meet-us-security-requirements.php/comment-page-1#comment-3202 Michael Arnold Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:08:28 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=245#comment-3202 It is the utmost serious issue that the US bases, be kept up to par. Not just for the safety of our allies, but for ourselves as well. Nuclear Weapons are not toys, nor are they like any other weapon in US inventory, and should not be taken lightly. These weapons should have the highest of security and safety. <b>Reply: </b>I think everyone agrees with that, including the U.S. Air Force and the people safeguarding the weapons at these forward bases. The Air Force and NATO can and will, of course, fix the security problems once again and then things can continue for a number of years till the next problems emerge. But security is not what this is about; the security problems are merely indicators of a bigger problem. The core issue is that we retain tactical nuclear weapons in Europe even though the mission for which they were initially deployed has disappeared. These days the nukes in Europe are a burden for NATO because they compete with scarce resources that are urgently needed elsewhere, because they complicate relations with Russia, and because the training of non-nuclear countries in delivering nuclear weapons is in violation of the nonproliferation norms that the NATO countries are trying to promote in the world. Instead we hear statements that they are vital political symbols of NATO's trans-Atlantic link - that without them the European countries would not really believe that the United States would come and help them if someone attacked Europe. Not only is that nonsense - because NATO security issues today have very little to do with nuclear weapons, and because the US (and the UK and France) has thousands of nuclear weapons deployed on long-range systems - but it also does NATO and the trans-Atlantic partnership a great disservice by politically anchoring US-European security on tactical nuclear weapons rather than the real-world security priorities that face NATO today. HK It is the utmost serious issue that the US bases, be kept up to par. Not just for the safety of our allies, but for ourselves as well. Nuclear Weapons are not toys, nor are they like any other weapon in US inventory, and should not be taken lightly. These weapons should have the highest of security and safety.

Reply: I think everyone agrees with that, including the U.S. Air Force and the people safeguarding the weapons at these forward bases. The Air Force and NATO can and will, of course, fix the security problems once again and then things can continue for a number of years till the next problems emerge. But security is not what this is about; the security problems are merely indicators of a bigger problem.

The core issue is that we retain tactical nuclear weapons in Europe even though the mission for which they were initially deployed has disappeared. These days the nukes in Europe are a burden for NATO because they compete with scarce resources that are urgently needed elsewhere, because they complicate relations with Russia, and because the training of non-nuclear countries in delivering nuclear weapons is in violation of the nonproliferation norms that the NATO countries are trying to promote in the world.

Instead we hear statements that they are vital political symbols of NATO’s trans-Atlantic link – that without them the European countries would not really believe that the United States would come and help them if someone attacked Europe. Not only is that nonsense – because NATO security issues today have very little to do with nuclear weapons, and because the US (and the UK and France) has thousands of nuclear weapons deployed on long-range systems – but it also does NATO and the trans-Atlantic partnership a great disservice by politically anchoring US-European security on tactical nuclear weapons rather than the real-world security priorities that face NATO today. HK

]]>